This is why I said valid claim, not claim :D

What the author misses entirely is while he feels it is less likely to happen less likely is still more likely than utterly impossible. There are other technologies available, such as Qt, where microsoft has no potential for a valid claim over the language. Why, as a developer, would I choose to put my code in a position where this concerns exist instead of taking a path that avoids it entirely?

I can understand how the role lead him to discover it, but he can't have known before getting that role that they were going to put functionality in that infringed on his patent. There's also been no evidence on either side (his part of theirs) to prove whether he did/didn't tell them in advance. It's completely plausible that after interviewing him and seeing his patent they became interested in adding that. I personally think software shouldn't be patentable at all http://www.binaryiris.com/node/26 so didn't even bother checking whether the patent is BS as the check is redundant ;) My interest was more that everybody is judging both him and microsoft when their is insufficient evidence in the article to do so. It's entirely he said she said without the gender variety.

There's no evidence to demonstrate he did these things. So in order for us to assume he's guilty we have to also assume he's precognitive. It also describes it such that Microsoft "found" the evidence. That's got to be inadmissible, right? No chain of custody there it could just as easily be planted by them. Hope the trial has some evidence behind it as there's insufficient to point fingers either way, but more than enough doubt to clear him.

given how well it's all gone you'd be forgiven for thinking they couldn't find people capable of handling sales, lending, and bank administration, regardless of nationality.

When we looked into it we found out that the cord itself degrades over time even in their storage and won't be usable in 18 years time. Verify that with the companies you're talking to as it was just over 5 years ago we looked at it. It's a lot of money for something that is only maybe useful and expires relatively soon. Though of course if you find out later that they've developed a treatment for something your child happens to get and you didn't do it the price will have seemed like a bargain. Also remember that our wisdom teeth are a source of stem cells - so he/she will be growing some spares (though in small quantities I guess) soon.

Not to mention the idea of stretching something has been around forever. Plus there's a small piece of prior art (albeit theoretical) that some people may be familiar with http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181689/

be charged? He/she has admitted to being in possession of child pornography as well as viewing it. At least according to the logic they seem to be following.

Actually - his question was if you don't distribute how is it illegal. The answer is it's not. The GPL only comes into force when you distribute the program. Though if you've distributed source and not a binary it's even more of a grey area as the source isn't using Qt libraries at all. It's just text. Though so long as you don't distribute either source or a binary to anybody then you're perfectly legal.

Given OLPCs backflips on Free Software being included do not support this if your intent is to help spread Free Software. They could just as easily turn around and ship your "give one" with windows. And really who wants to give the "gift" of Microsoft? Well done Nicolas. You were teaching them to fish, but ultimately caved and gave them their first Microsoft fillet. Not only have you let down those you sought to help, you've irrevocably destroyed the value of your word. You have no credibility here time to move on.